Re: Global do-gooder with trouble at home
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:17:00 -0400, JDG wrote > Do you believe that "the poor will always be with us"? I believe that there is truth in that sentence. I'm not sure what *you* mean by it. To me, the verse "the poor you will always have with you," means that we are called as Christians to be with the poor; to be generous in worship and in charity. It was spoken at table in the home of a poor person, a leper, in the company of the disciples. It was a statement about the disciples' priorities -- that as Christ's followers they would continue to spend their time with the poorest and therefore would have many opportunities to share their wealth with them. This passage echoes the Old Testament teaching, "Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. Since there will never cease to be need on the earth, I therefore command you, 'Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.'" (Deut. 15:10-11) > Do you believe that ending poverty is simply a matter of spending enough > money? I believe that feeding hungry people, providing health care and education are easily done with money. We have the infrastructure and technologies to offer these for every person in the United States; only our will stands in the way. Some also say that over the last few years, we have reached the point in technology and global infrastructure development to feed every hungry person in the world; only our will stands in the way. > If yes, do you believe that our society currently has enough money > to spend in order to do so? I have no doubt that we have enough to provide the things I have described. I don't think those things alone will end poverty. Social justice doesn't arise from providing basic necessities. More than anything else, it means a priority on being the "land of opportunity" for all, which calls for listening to and investment in our neighbors and neighborhoods that goes beyond food, health care and education. For far too many of us, the only opportunities are along the lines of, "Do you want fries with that?" Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Global do-gooder with trouble at home
On Apr 25, 2005, at 7:17 PM, JDG wrote: At 07:13 AM 4/25/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: We could choose to be in a position to stop all kinds of mass death. How much of it do we choose to be responsible for? How much are we willing to give up in order to maximize life? And speaking of codependency... as we focus increasingly on other nations' problems, more and more people in our homeland are living in poverty, social programs are being cut all over the place. I'm not arguing for isolationism; we are part of an international family of nations. But when we focus so much on being "global do-gooders" that we no longer can take care of our own, we crossed over into a sort of international codependency, haven't we? A series of questions: Oo! Oo! Mistah Kottah! Do you believe that "the poor will always be with us"? Possibly. "Always" is a very, very, *very* long time. I think it's safe to assert that there will, for a very long time, be people whose wealth on a given scale is less than that of others' on the same scale, but what a human culture 2K years from now might regard as poverty is something I don't think anyone can guess. Do you believe that ending poverty is simply a matter of spending enough money? I don't see how that could work. It hasn't so far anyway. Seems to me it's a considerably more complicated matter. I don't think Nick's on about "the poor"; I think he's pointing to a broader range of issues. Such as crumbling infrastructure and ever-shrinking education budgets, for starters. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Global do-gooder with trouble at home
At 07:13 AM 4/25/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: >> We could choose to be in a position to stop all kinds of mass death. >> How much of it do we choose to be responsible for? How much are we >> willing to give up in order to maximize life? > >And speaking of codependency... as we focus increasingly on other nations' >problems, more and more people in our homeland are living in poverty, social >programs are being cut all over the place. I'm not arguing for isolationism; >we are part of an international family of nations. But when we focus so much >on being "global do-gooders" that we no longer can take care of our own, we >crossed over into a sort of international codependency, haven't we? A series of questions: Do you believe that "the poor will always be with us"? Do you believe that ending poverty is simply a matter of spending enough money? If yes, do you believe that our society currently has enough money to spend in order to do so? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Global do-gooder with trouble at home
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:57:05 -0700 (PDT), dland wrote > We could choose to be in a position to stop all kinds of mass death. > How much of it do we choose to be responsible for? How much are we > willing to give up in order to maximize life? And speaking of codependency... as we focus increasingly on other nations' problems, more and more people in our homeland are living in poverty, social programs are being cut all over the place. I'm not arguing for isolationism; we are part of an international family of nations. But when we focus so much on being "global do-gooders" that we no longer can take care of our own, we crossed over into a sort of international codependency, haven't we? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
